The Nature of Marriage...

[Webservant]

My wife and I were having a discussion today about marriage. Neither of us believes that marriage should be a function of the state - in other words, a marriage commitment made before God and men is clearly valid, and the license is the state's way of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

She then asked me what constitutes a marriage ceremony. I stumbled, and I stammered - and I had no answer. I cannot think of any instructions in the Scriptures which would answer that question. It's clear that marriage is more than just a commited relationship, but at it's barest minimum, at what point are you married?

I suppose that if one were stranded with one's girlfriend on a remote island and wanted to marry, in theory, you could roll your own ceremony, and get married - right?

 

[Christusregnat]

Rich,

The way that this has developed in Christendom, by use of specific biblical precept and example, has led to several conclusions:

1. The covenant of marriage is initiated at what we call "engagement"; once a "promise to marry" (de verbo futuro) is given, the two are legally married. Mary was Joseph's "betrothed wife".

2. The covenant must be publicly witnessed, since it involves issues of inheritance and community, ala Ruth and Boaz's public marriage ceremony.

3. The covenant is ratified once the two sexually consummate, i.e. the two become "one flesh".

4. The covenant of marriage must be recorded with the magistrate, so that laws against adultery, enforcing dowry and prenuptial covenants etc. can be enforced, and so that the state can exclude bastards from certain civil functions, as discussed in the law.

What this generally led to was, among the puritans, a civil service where the magistrate solemnized (not licensed) the marriage. Ecclesiastical "ceremonies" are papist in nature, and were introduced into American society by the Anglo-catholics. As a general rule, none of the Puritans or Pilgrims practiced ecclesiastical marriage.

I have an excellently researched article on the subject, exploring the development of the marriage service in America. If you would like it, and would be interested, I may be able to scan and send it to you. I'm sure there's a way to put it up on PB after scanning it, but I'm no Andrew Meyers

Cheers,

Adam

My wife and I were having a discussion today about marriage. Neither of us believes that marriage should be a function of the state - in other words, a marriage solemnized and sealed before God and men is clearly valid, and the license is the state's way of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

She then asked me what constitutes a marriage ceremony. I stumbled, and I stammered - and I had no answer. I cannot think of any instructions in the Scriptures which would answer that question. It's clear that marriage is more than just a commited relationship, but at it's barest minimum, at what point are you married?

I suppose that if one were stranded with one's girlfriend on a remote island and wanted to marry, in theory, you could roll your own ceremony, and get married - right?

 

[Ivan]

I suggest that Adam's article become part of The PuritanBoard Theological Journal.

 

[Webservant]

Rich,

The way that this has developed in Christendom, by use of specific biblical precept and example, has led to several conclusions:

1. The covenant of marriage is initiated at what we call "engagement"; once a "promise to marry" (de verbo futuro) is given, the two are legally married. Mary was Joseph's "betrothed wife".

2. The covenant must be publicly witnessed, since it involves issues of inheritance and community, ala Ruth and Boaz's public marriage ceremony.

3. The covenant is ratified once the two sexually consummate, i.e. the two become "one flesh".

4. The covenant of marriage must be recorded with the magistrate, so that laws against adultery, enforcing dowry and prenuptial covenants etc. can be enforced, and so that the state can exclude bastards from certain civil functions, as discussed in the law.

What this generally led to was, among the puritans, a civil service where the magistrate solemnized (not licensed) the marriage. Ecclesiastical "ceremonies" are papist in nature, and were introduced into American society by the Anglo-catholics. None of the Puritans or Pilgrims practiced ecclesiastical marriage.

I have an excellently researched article on the subject, exploring the development of the marriage service in America. If you would like it, and would be interested, I may be able to scan and send it to you. I'm sure there's a way to put it up on PB after scanning it, but I'm no Andrew Meyers

Cheers,

Adam

My wife and I were having a discussion today about marriage. Neither of us believes that marriage should be a function of the state - in other words, a marriage solemnized and sealed before God and men is clearly valid, and the license is the state's way of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

She then asked me what constitutes a marriage ceremony. I stumbled, and I stammered - and I had no answer. I cannot think of any instructions in the Scriptures which would answer that question. It's clear that marriage is more than just a commited relationship, but at it's barest minimum, at what point are you married?

I suppose that if one were stranded with one's girlfriend on a remote island and wanted to marry, in theory, you could roll your own ceremony, and get married - right?

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Recordation of the marriage is a completely different thing than licensing it. Yes, please do send me that article - send it to [email protected] .

 

[TimV]

If two people were stranded, then they could do it with witnesses, in this case carving oaths on a tree or something. You can see this from Ruth chapter 4. Witnesses don't have to be people, although it's preferred. You can even see this in the PCA BCO under rules of evidence.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Rich,
. . .
Ecclesiastical "ceremonies" are papist in nature, and were introduced into American society by the Anglo-catholics. None of the Puritans or Pilgrims practiced ecclesiastical marriage.

Very interesting Adam. I did not know this. Any additional comments on the development of the "ecclesiastical ceremony"?

 

[Christusregnat]

Rich,
. . .
Ecclesiastical "ceremonies" are papist in nature, and were introduced into American society by the Anglo-catholics. None of the Puritans or Pilgrims practiced ecclesiastical marriage.

Very interesting Adam. I did not know this. Any additional comments on the development of the "ecclesiastical ceremony"?

Jim,

Ecclesiastical ceremony is related to the idea of marriage as sacrament, which is a papist and semi-papist idea. This is why Anglicanism (the closest relative to Romish ideas in the protestant camp) retained the ecclesiastical nature of the marriage service. Also, due to this background, the puritans and pilgrims rejected ecclesiastical services.

Also, the only example of marriage services in Scripture are civil or familial. Hence, the only practice that could be an "ought" as far as solemnization would be civil or family. Because of the issues of inheritance, punishment of adultery etc., the most logical method would be a civil solemnization.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This thread in which I assembled some of the past thread on this subject and offered a few brief comments may be of interest.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-21-5-22-wedding-worship-service-37457/

 

[Christusregnat]

I suggest that Adam's article become part of The PuritanBoard Theological Journal.

Ivan, I'll scan and would be willing to post it on PB, if I only knew how

One caveat is that the gentleman who put it together, though a brilliant scholar, and making some very keen observations, is a white supremacist, and his axe to grind is that the marriage license originated with intermarriage, or what we call "interracial marriage". This is a point that he makes repeatedly, and if this can be overlooked, the article is otherwise an excellent historical explanation of Christian marriage services, and the history of the marriage license.

License means permission to do something which is otherwise unlawful. Christendom has always required the reading of the banns two weeks prior to solemnization. The banns are culminated in the service when it is asked again about whether anyone has lawful objections. The banns are basically the same thing, but they take place before the service. When someone wanted to get married without the banns (unlawfully), he was required to get a special permission; a license. Later, when intermarriage became illegal, it was required that a special permission be granted to intermarry: a license.

I'll try to scan some time today. In the mean time, would someone be willing to find out how I get such documents up on the PB?

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

If two people were stranded, then they could do it with witnesses, in this case carving oaths on a tree or something. You can see this from Ruth chapter 4. Witnesses don't have to be people, although it's preferred. You can even see this in the PCA BCO under rules of evidence.

Interesting thought Tim. The only thing I see wrong with this argument is that the witnesses in Ruth were people. I admit, though, that it would be a very unusual circumstances, and may fall outside the general parameters.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

This thread in which I assembled some of the past thread on this subject and offered a few brief comments may be of interest.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-21-5-22-wedding-worship-service-37457/

Hey, how do I add a document somewhere on PB for all to see?

Cheers,

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This thread in which I assembled some of the past thread on this subject and offered a few brief comments may be of interest.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-21-5-22-wedding-worship-service-37457/

Hey, how do I add a document somewhere on PB for all to see?

Cheers,

Adam -- It may depend on the format but I have uploaded documents here in the past, I just click on "manage attachments" while drafting my post and follow the prompts for uploading from your computer or a url. There is a size limit which I don't recall off hand. You may need to experiment with that process but if the document is the appropriate size and format, it shouldn't be too difficult. Of course, I'm not a techie so my directions may be oversimplified. Hope this helps a little though.

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks. I'll give this try.

Cheers,

Adam

This thread in which I assembled some of the past thread on this subject and offered a few brief comments may be of interest.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-21-5-22-wedding-worship-service-37457/

Hey, how do I add a document somewhere on PB for all to see?

Cheers,

Adam -- It may depend on the format but I have uploaded documents here in the past, I just click on "manage attachments" while drafting my post and follow the prompts for uploading from your computer or a url. There is a size limit which I don't recall off hand. You may need to experiment with that process but if the document is the appropriate size and format, it shouldn't be too difficult. Of course, I'm not a techie so my directions may be oversimplified. Hope this helps a little though.

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks. I'll give this try.

Cheers,

Adam

My attempt failed; the files are too large. Whoever wants this document, please PM me with your email address.

Cheers,

 

[greenbaggins]

Marriage is a creation ordinance, along with work and Sabbath. Therefore it belongs to all people, not just Christians. If the state didn't regulate marriage, then non-believers couldn't get married, which would certainly be a reductio ad absurdam. So, I would argue that the state most definitely has the right to regulate marriage and document and certify marriages. That being said, marriage doesn't find it's true meaning until you look at Ephesians 5. That is what marriage really means, and the secular state is clueless about this.

 

[Webservant]

Marriage is a creation ordinance, along with work and Sabbath. Therefore it belongs to all people, not just Christians. If the state didn't regulate marriage, then non-believers couldn't get married, which would certainly be a reductio ad absurdam. So, I would argue that the state most definitely has the right to regulate marriage and document and certify marriages. That being said, marriage doesn't find it's true meaning until you look at Ephesians 5. That is what marriage really means, and the secular state is clueless about this.

I would agree in our present society but this certainly was not the case from what I just read in Ruth 3 and 4, not in the sense of a "state" anyway.

 

[Mushroom]

Marriage is a creation ordinance, along with work and Sabbath. Therefore it belongs to all people, not just Christians. If the state didn't regulate marriage, then non-believers couldn't get married, which would certainly be a reductio ad absurdam. So, I would argue that the state most definitely has the right to regulate marriage and document and certify marriages. That being said, marriage doesn't find it's true meaning until you look at Ephesians 5. That is what marriage really means, and the secular state is clueless about this.

I would agree in our present society but this certainly was not the case from what I just read in Ruth 3 and 4, not in the sense of a "state" anyway.

Lane's point about marriage being a creation ordinance, binding on all humanity, is what came to my mind first. It would make sense from that for the magistrate to exercise authority over it in a secular nation. As for Ruth and Boaz, they did not live in a secular nation. All the more reason for us to desire the establishment of God's law as the law of the land. No more lovely a marriage was ever recorded:

Rth 4:10-12 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. (11) And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: (12) And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

Amen!

A joyous Lord's Day to all!

 

[Theognome]

My wife and I were having a discussion today about marriage. Neither of us believes that marriage should be a function of the state - in other words, a marriage commitment made before God and men is clearly valid, and the license is the state's way of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

She then asked me what constitutes a marriage ceremony. I stumbled, and I stammered - and I had no answer. I cannot think of any instructions in the Scriptures which would answer that question. It's clear that marriage is more than just a commited relationship, but at it's barest minimum, at what point are you married?

I suppose that if one were stranded with one's girlfriend on a remote island and wanted to marry, in theory, you could roll your own ceremony, and get married - right?

I wrote this a few years ago, but it does address, in a round-about way, what you're asking. Here ya go.

Sex
Sex. The word inspires an incredible variety of images. It’s everywhere. Movies, advertisements, books, video games… you name it. Ultimately, it’s in the bedroom, or perhaps a Buick. Subaru’s tend to be too cramped.

Now we Reformed Christians also have need of sex. After all, it’s perhaps the most conveniently enjoyable way to enlarge the covenant community. However, from the Christian view, there is a right and a wrong way to engage in this activity. There is great symbolism in it, and the bible is not silent on this topic. So, let’s spend a brief moment looking at godly sex.

The Marriage Union

Genesis 2:24- “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

This passage has been interpreted in many ways. Some folk have even reasoned that it indicates that just having sex with someone else means that they are married. Upon closer examination, we find that to be untrue. Sex outside of marriage is called fornication. Sex, in of itself, is not a covenant before God. In John 4:17-18, Christ agrees with the Samaritan woman that she has no husband, even though she was having relations with a man at the time. What we have in Gen. 2:24 is the establishment of the covenant of marriage. Ephesians 5:22-33 describes marriage not in terms of sex, but in terms of covenant. Hosea 2:14-23 also demonstrates marriage as covenant, in this case covenant between God and Israel. So in marriage, we enter into covenant before God, to display His covenant here on earth.

The Glory of the Covenant

So, how does sex fit into this covenant? Well, the obvious answer is to continue the covenant family. God speaks to generations, so we need to provide generations. Well, God provides the generations, but the means that He uses to do this is our joining physically. But there is far more to it than this. Gen. 2:25 reads, “And they were both naked, the man and wife, and were not ashamed.” The covenantal language of Gen. 2:24 is demonstrated here. God’s covenant with man is pictured in marriage, and the shame of sin is removed within these covenants. Our nakedness between husband and wife continued beyond the fall, in reflection of the relationship that our Lord established in the garden and secured on the cross. Paul in Ephesians 5 refers to this type of relationship concerning Christ and marriage, and Revelation 21:9-11 further ties this similarity of covenants. Note that in both of the above passages, the bride of Christ is referred to as without flaw or blemish or as being holy, filled with the glory of God. This is a state of redemption- blamelessness restored. So then, within a marriage, sex is demonstrative of that perfection. To be together without shame is like being together without sin. Obviously, we aren’t actually sinless during sex, but that is what it is a picture of, and we should approach the wedding bed with that in mind- the righteous future of the redeemed glimpsed here on earth, symbolized physically through the covenant of marriage before God.

Erotica

So then, what is proper for Christian sex? For that, we turn to the Song of Solomon. We know that when we engage in godly sex, our end purpose is to glorify God through His covenant. However, once the festivities begin, that’s not where our thoughts are going to be. Son. 7:1-9 starts off the union festivities with words from the beloved. He is lavish and metaphoric in his description of the Shulamite. She responds not with similar praise, but with surrender to his passion. He has described and touched her with great detail, and explained in many ways what he plans to do with her. This is foreplay at it’s finest, and an absolute necessity for pleasurable sex for both participants. Son. 7:10-13 is very poetic (as if the rest isn’t), and does not mean that she plans to lay with him in all of those places, but rather is describing the extent of her surrender to him. Through this passion and surrender (and union), the understanding of love within marriage is strengthened. In verses 8:6-7 the Shulamite declaring an eternal, deep love for her beloved. Unquenchable, unyielding, deeply rooted love that has sealed their bond of marriage, and cemented their desire for each other.

Notice how much the male partner is talking to his mate? Yes, guys, the ladies like that. God made man and woman different- and while a man can be quite prepared to 'go to town' based on what he sees, women are, for the greater part, not like that at all. The Beloved talks her through the consummation while gently touching her, thus causing her greater arousal.

Theognome

 

[Staphlobob]

Marriage is a creation ordinance, along with work and Sabbath. Therefore it belongs to all people, not just Christians. If the state didn't regulate marriage, then non-believers couldn't get married, which would certainly be a reductio ad absurdam. So, I would argue that the state most definitely has the right to regulate marriage and document and certify marriages. That being said, marriage doesn't find it's true meaning until you look at Ephesians 5. That is what marriage really means, and the secular state is clueless about this.

So, even with Ephesians 5, there's no such thing as a "Christian marriage?"

Just trying to get my head around things.